FreedomWorks - hobby lobbyhttp://www.freedomworks.org/fieldtags/hobby-lobby
enHobby Lobby Ruling a Narrow Win for Freedomhttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/hobby-lobby-ruling-narrow-win-freedom
<div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/hobby_lobby.jpeg?itok=V_KO5d_3"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/hobby_lobby.jpeg?itok=V_KO5d_3" width="480" height="360" alt="Freed from one mandate, but others remain." /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Today’s much anticipated Supreme Court decision on the case of Burwell, <em>Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.</em> was expected to have broad implications for the application of the Affordable Care Act <em>vis a vis</em> the Constitution. Can the government dictate what kinds of insurance employers are required to provide, or should individuals be free to enter into any contracts they choose?</p>
<p>Now that the <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf">5-4 decision</a> has been made public, there is both cause for celebration, and grave disappointment among those of us who were hoping for a broad ruling in favor of individual liberty.</p>
<p>Justices Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, and Thomas joined in the opinion that the federal government could not force Hobby Lobby to pay for contraception coverage for its employees. While this is the correct ruling, it largely comes for the wrong reasons and misses a broader point that would have set an important precedent for future cases.</p>
<p>The majority opinion, authored by Justice Alito, chose to attack the problem from the standpoint of an existing law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, rather than attack the root of the issue on a constitutional basis. The core issue is not, in fact, one of religious freedom, but falls under the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of association, and by extension the freedom to enter into voluntary contracts.</p>
<p>Having already made its decision on the basis of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, however, the Court saw no need to further pursue these kind of constitutional arguments. At the conclusion of his opinion, Justice Alito wrote: “The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim.”</p>
<p>It is not exactly surprising that the Court would refrain from issuing a broader ruling that would have had extensive implications for other federal laws, but it is disappointing. The freedom of contract is abridged in innumerable ways by federal laws, from the minimum wage, to labor union protections, to the other mandates within the Affordable Care Act. It is high time that we evaluate in detail whether individuals should be allowed to negotiate with one another within the context of a private business arrangement, or if the government must insert itself into these arrangements when it is not wanted.</p>
<p>The current ruling narrowly exempts certain kinds of organizations from certain kinds of mandates, but it remains unclear why these sorts of protections should not be extended equally to all organizations, as well as to private citizens acting in their capacity as employees or entrepreneurs.</p>
<p>To be sure, the <em>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby</em> case is a victory for freedom, but it is a small one that will have little practical application. There remains far more devastating mandates within ObamaCare’s thousands of pages of regulations that need to be stricken down as well. For now, we will have to content ourselves with these sorts of piecemeal rulings that chip into the government’s authority one small bite at a time.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-button-text field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Visit Our Judicial Reform Project</div></div></div>Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:54:05 +0000logan.albright60153 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/hobby-lobby-ruling-narrow-win-freedom#commentsHobby Lobby Wins Temporary Exemption From Contraceptive Mandatehttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/hobby-lobby-wins-temporary-exemption-contraceptive-mandate
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Hobby Lobby has stood strong this year while the government repeatedly attempted to <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/ameliahamilton/hobby-lobby-stuck-between-rights-and-government">infringe</a> on the owners’ first amendment right to freely exercise religion. The public organized a day to <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/ameliahamilton/support-hobby-lobby-against-government-tyranny">support</a> the store’s right not to offer abortifacients as part of their health care plan, as the founders believe life begins at conception. It was untenable to the American people that the government could force them to do something that was so anathema to their beliefs. In return, the store was faced with fines of up to $1.3 million <em>per day</em>. This is still America, right? Do we have to pay for the privilege of having our Constitutional rights respected?&nbsp;</p> <p>The Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, offer 16 types of contraceptives in their health care package, but they do not offer any which would prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. These abortifacients would violate their religious beliefs that life begins at conception. "To offer prescriptions that take life is not an option for us," <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/19/judge-grants-exemption-for-hobby-lobby-in-obamacare-challenge/">said</a> Green. Last month, it was ruled that Hobby Lobby would not be fined while the matter was being decided in court. This most recent ruling is another big win for the craft store chain.&nbsp;</p> <p>The final determination of whether or not the contraception mandate is constitutional will be heard at a later date, but this decision does mean that the judge believes Hobby Lobby has a reasonable chance of proving that it is not. The temporary exemption will expire on October first, when the case is set to be heard in court. Here’s hoping that the Constitution prevails once again, and yet another wheel falls off of the Obamacare train.&nbsp;</p></div></div></div>Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:16:02 +0000AmeliaHamilton57651 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/hobby-lobby-wins-temporary-exemption-contraceptive-mandate#commentsConflicting Rulings on Obamacarehttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/conflicting-rulings-obamacare
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>When Nancy Pelosi announced that the Obamacare bill would have to be passed in order to see what was in it, the American people knew (or should have known) that this was not a piece of legislation which had been fully considered. Now that it is law, this is becoming increasingly evident on at least one front; the response to litigation against it. A look at decisions made regarding lawsuits filed against Obamacare show that the judicial system was not prepared for such arguments. Take, for example, the cases of Hobby Lobby and Domino’s Farms. These are very similar cases, but have received contradictory rulings, leaving Americans, especially business owners, wondering exactly how prepared our government was for this legislation.&nbsp;</p> <p>In the case of <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/ameliahamilton/hobby-lobby-stuck-between-rights-and-government">Hobby Lobby</a>, the Christian owners are unable to provide emergency contraceptives such as Plan B without violating their religious beliefs. While the case is pending, they asked to be exempt from this Obamacare requirement, a request which was denied. They now face crippling fines for non compliance as they wait for their case to be resolved. Domino’s Farms, owned by Domino’s Pizza founder Tom Monaghan, sued for an exemption from providing any birth control as it violates his Catholic faith. In his original suit, birth control was <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/31/pizza-magnate-wins-contraception-ruling/1801705/">described</a> as "Gravely immoral practices." Monaghan was <a href="http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/02/dominos-pizza-founder-wins-emergency-order-to-stop-hhs-mandate/">granted</a> an emergency order allowing him an exemption while his case his being considered. With these differing rulings on religious liberty versus Obamacare, an already disorganized situation becomes decidedly chaotic.</p> <p>Aside from the scope of contraception in question, these cases are very similar. One difference, however, is in the size of the companies. Domino’s Farms is a <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/31/pizza-magnate-wins-contraception-ruling/1801705/">small company</a> with 45 full-time employees, and could be penalized approximately $200,000 per year if it is ruled that they must comply with Obamacare but do not do so. Hobby Lobby, on the other hand, <a href="http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=4dc29672-a2ff-41cd-8b14-2440e1b6e954&amp;ocid=vt_twmsnmon&amp;buffer_share=7a37f">employs</a> more than 13,000 workers in 500 stores over 41 states. At $1.3 million a day, the company could be fined hundreds of millions of dollars a year for non compliance. Are the American people to assume that smaller companies will not have to comply, but larger ones will? Is there a financial motive behind these decisions?</p> <p>These rulings were made in different states (Oklahoma and Michigan, respectively), giving them the appearance of state issues rather than federal. While it could reasonably be argued that healthcare <em>is</em> a state issue, religious freedom is enshrined in the Constitution. This protects it for every American citizen in perpetuity. If the Constitution is being respected and applied equally, states should not be able to rule otherwise.&nbsp;</p> <p>When some companies are allowed to comply with their religious beliefs pending litigation and some are not, what are American citizens to believe? Are we not guaranteed equal justice under the law? The future of religious liberty in America is at stake, and the judiciary seems to have been caught completely unprepared. With more questions than answers, I would like to refer you to the Bill of Rights. If you’re in a hurry, just read the First Amendment. It will tell you everything you need to know.&nbsp;</p></div></div></div>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:19:10 +0000AmeliaHamilton55874 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/conflicting-rulings-obamacare#commentsSupport Hobby Lobby Against Government Tyrannyhttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/support-hobby-lobby-against-government-tyranny
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>When a government oversteps its limitations, citizens will sometimes grumble or gripe. When it’s the American government overstepping the bounds of the Constitution, Americans band together and take it a little more seriously. </p><p>When local governments tried to stomp on Chick-Fil-A’s right to free speech, a grassroots movement organized a day to support them. Americans swarmed to the restaurants on&nbsp; <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/chick-fil-record-setting-sales-appreciation-day/story?id=16912978%23.UONoHramAfo">Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day</a>, shattering sales records. A similar <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/ameliahamilton/stand-with-papa-johns-and-against-obamacare">event</a> was planned to support Papa John’s Pizza after owner John Schattner was realistic about the ramifications of Obamacare. Now, the government is treading on the religious beliefs, and ultimately the first amendment rights of business owners, and Americans are poised to step up to the plate again.&nbsp;</p> <p>As Christians, the Green family who own Hobby Lobby are unable to provide the morning-after pill as part of their healthcare coverage without violating their religious beliefs. As that coverage is required under Obamacare, this conflict has set off a legal <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/ameliahamilton/hobby-lobby-stuck-between-rights-and-government">battle</a> that still rages on. In order to comply with their religious beliefs, the Greens could be out <a href="//t%20will%20be%20subject%20to%20over%20$1.3%20million%20in%20fines%20per%20day.%20That%20means%20over%20$40%20million%20in%20fines%20in%20January%20alone.%20If%20their%20case%20takes%20another%20ten%20months%20to%20get%20before%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%94which%20would%20be%20the%20earliest%20it%20could%20get%20there%20under%20the%20normal%20order%20of%20business%E2%80%94the%20company%20would%20incur%20almost%20a%20half-billion%20dollars%20in%20fines.%20And%20then%20of%20course%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20would%20have%20to%20write%20an%20opinion%20in%20what%20would%20likely%20be%20a%20split%20decision%20with%20dissenters,%20which%20could%20easily%20take%20four%20or%20six%20months%20and%20include%20hundreds%20of%20millions%20of%20dollars%20in%20additional%20penalties.This%20is%20civil%20disobedience,%20consistent%20with%20America%E2%80%99s%20highest%20traditions%20when%20moral%20issues%20are%20at%20stake.%20The%20Greens%20are%20a%20law-abiding%20family.%20They%20have%20no%20de">up to</a> $1.3 million per day in fines. That would be more than $40 million this month alone.&nbsp;</p> <p>Fortunately, the American people have their backs. This Saturday, January 5th, has been appointed as the day to support Hobby Lobby with our wallets. It is getting costly to take a stand against the overreaching government, however, we can pitch in to show our support to business owners who are willing to do so and to show the government that these businesses do not stand alone. Our Constitution must be defended.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p></div></div></div>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:54:35 +0000AmeliaHamilton55869 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/support-hobby-lobby-against-government-tyranny#commentsHobby Lobby - Stuck Between Rights and Governmenthttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/hobby-lobby-stuck-between-rights-and-government
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Nationwide arts and crafts store <a href="http://www.hobbylobby.com/home.cfm">Hobby Lobby</a> is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Or, as the case may be, between fundamental rights and the government enforcement of law. A first amendment battle is brewing on the grounds of religious freedom and, as the battle is heating up, neither side looks ready to budge.&nbsp;</p> <p>The Christian-owned Hobby Lobby has sued for an exemption from the section of Obamacare which requires employers to provide a healthcare plan including emergency contraception such as the morning-after pill. It is their belief that these pills are equal to an abortion, which goes against their deeply held religious convictions, although they will still provide coverage for standard birth control pills.&nbsp;</p> <p>Hobby Lobby had requested an injunction which would allow them to be exempt from this mandate while the lawsuit was pending. Last month, this was <a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/14044-supreme-court-refuses-hobby-lobby-contraception-mandate-request">denied</a>, but the company fought on. On Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor also <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/27/us-usa-healthcare-hobbylobby-idUSBRE8BQ00A20121227">denied</a> the request. Hobby Lobby is still pursuing the injunction in lower courts.&nbsp;</p> <p>Hobby Lobby said in a <a href="http://www.newser.com/article/da3ee7s01/attorney-hobby-lobby-to-defy-morning-after-pill-insurance-requirement-while-lawsuits-pending.html">statement</a> released yesterday that "The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees. To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs." The decision to buck the federal mandate and stay true to their religious beliefs could mean fines of up to $1.3 million dollars a day. With the government deciding whose religious beliefs will be respected and whose will not, businesses are left with difficult decisions between their convictions and possible bankruptcy.&nbsp;</p> <p>There are those who argue Hobby Lobby simply does not want to shoulder the cost of a healthcare plan which is in compliance with Obamacare. With such heavy fines, this is clearly not a decision based on finances over faith. Taking a stand is a very costly prospect for the arts and crafts store yet they, like others around America, are willing to fight for that in which they believe.&nbsp;</p> <p>Recently, Belmont Abbey College and Wheaton College (which are Catholic and Christian respectively), <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/19/religion-trumps-obamacare/">fought</a> for a similar exemption on religious grounds<a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/19/religion-trumps-obamacare/"> as did</a> The Archdiocese of New York. In these cases, it was ruled that they should not be forced to provide coverage which violated their religious beliefs. The difference between these cases and Hobby Lobby is that the latter is not a religious institution, and the others are. However, the rights of the individual are a cornerstone of America's foundation. There is no compelling reason for that freedom to be limited in this case, and must fiercely be protected.&nbsp;</p> <p>The First Amendment secures the rights of all Americans to worship freely without government infringement. Yet now, due to this law businesses face heavy fines for standing up for their religious convictions and putting their faith into practice. This raises a lot of questions. How will Congress respond? Will our representatives stand up for the beliefs of their constituents and of the Constitution itself?&nbsp;</p> <p>The biggest questions may be with regards to what happens next. Will these battles cause a delay in implementation? With Constitutional protection for religious beliefs being thrown out the window, what will the next casualty be?</p></div></div></div>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:53:35 +0000AmeliaHamilton55862 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/hobby-lobby-stuck-between-rights-and-government#comments